Teachers enjoy no constitutional right to ignore school directives
in order to present creationism in the classroom, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled.

A three-judge panel of the court this month affirmed a May 1989
decision by the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Webster v.
New Lenox School District.

"The First Amendment is not a teacher license for uncontrolled
expression at variance with established curricular content," said the
appellate court, in an opinion written by Judge Kenneth F. Ripple.

Lawyers on both sides of the dispute say the decision marks the
first time a federal appeals court has ruled on whether a teacher can
present creationism in class after being ordered not to do so.

If, as expected, the case is appealed, it eventually could provide
the U.S. Supreme Court with another chance to ponder the inherent
tension between the First Amendment's ban on establishment of religion
and its protection of free speech--in this instance wrapped in the
mantle of academic freedom.

The case concerns Ray Webster, a social-studies teacher at
Oster-Oakview Junior High School in New Lenox, Ill. Mr. Webster began
to introduce tenets of so-called "creation science" into his class
along with traditional textbook material on evolution.

Because of complaints about Mr. Webster's practice, the New Lenox
superintendent, Alex M. Martino, in fall 1987 sent him a letter saying
he was "not to teach creationist science as the federal courts have
held that this is religious advocacy."

"You may discuss the historical relationship between the church and
state," Mr. Martino continued, "but only in a purely objective manner
without advocacy of a Christian viewpoint and only if such discussion
is an appropriate part of the standard curriculum."

Mr. Webster sought court relief, claiming that the superintendent
was violating his First and 14th Amendment rights, but the district
court dismissed his complaint.

Judge Ripple wrote that Mr. Webster, "in effect, argues that the
school board must permit him to teach what he pleases."

"Given the school board's important pedagogical interest in
establishing the curriculum and legitimate concern with possible
Establishment Clause violations,the school board's prohibition on the
teaching of creation science to junior-high students was appropriate,"
the appellate court stated.

It said the school board "successfully navigated the narrow channel
between impairing intellectual inquiry and propagating a religious
creed."

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science "embodies the
religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the
creation of humankind" and that a Louisiana decree that it be taught in
public schools along with evolution violated the Constitution. (See
Education Week, June 24, 1987.)

"While a lot of people will see this as an issue of creation science
and religion in the classroom," it really involves restraint of free
speech, Mr. Hervas said.

"We're having censorship. [Mr. Webster] is required to teach
evolution" but is prevented from broaching an alternative theory, the
lawyer said.

"Requiring him to say one thing and disallowing him to say another
thing, I think, is censorship," he asserted. "We've come full circle''
from the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial," when a teacher was forbidden to
teach the theory of evolution, he said.

Now, the scientific and educational community "finds creation
science to be unacceptable, and they've barred that from the
classroom," Mr. Hervas said.

He said the very fact that some people accept creationism spurred
Mr. Webster to inform his class of it. "As long as it's done in a fair
and open-minded fashion, I don't see why it should be illegal or
unconstitutional," Mr. Hervas said.

Richard R. Winter, lawyer for the school district, agreed that First
Amendment issues are at stake in the case.

"It's really a First Amendment issue from the teacher's
perspective," he said. "It's a First Amendent right of a teacher versus
a school district's right to control the curriculum and its obligation
to protect the First Amendment rights of students" to be free from
establishment of religion, he added.

In his opinion in May 1989, District Judge George M. Marovich wrote
that under the Constitution, the state "cannot enact a statute which
would violate the Establishment Clause and New Lenox cannot enact a
curriculum which would inject religion into the public-school
setting."

Therefore, he determined, "if a teacher in a public school uses
religion and teaches religious beliefs or espouses theories clearly
based on religious underpinnings, the principles of the separation of
church and state are violated as clearly as if a statute ordered the
teacher to teach religious theories."

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.